Theory of film : the redemption of physical reality (1960)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

History and Fantasy One thing is evident: whenever a film maker turns the spotlight on a historical subject or ventures into the realm of fantasy, he runs the risk of defying the basic properties of his medium. Roughly speaking, he seems no longer concerned with physical reality but bent on incorporating worlds which to all appearances lie outside the orbit of actuality. The following pages deal with some major difficulties arising from such an annexation to the screen of the past or an "unreal" universe, and with significant attempts at a reconciliation between these pictorial ventures and the demands of the cinematic approach. HISTORY Difficulties Unlike the immediate past, the historical past must be staged in terms of costumes and settings completely estranged from present-day life. Consequently, it is inevitable that any moviegoer susceptible to the medium should feel uneasy about their irrevocable staginess. The cinema's preference for the unstaged may even condition his sensibilities to such an extent that, deaf to the promptings of the action, he involuntarily substitutes untampered-with nature for the make-believe world on the screen. Identifying himself with the camera, that is, he does not naively succumb to the magic of the allegedly recaptured past but remains conscious of the efforts going into its construction. 'The camera," says Cavalcanti, "is so literalminded that if you show it actors dressed up, it sees actors-dressed-up, not characters."1 Period costumes recall the theater or a masquerade. 77